Tom D. - we had the demand planning module as well, and it failed for us. It doesn't offer much in the way of an improvement IMO, and even NS admits that it is only meant to fit a very narrow use case for a simple business with one location, who doesn't use kits, etc. - they said so at a session this year at SuiteWorld, in…

Good to hear, thanks for the response paule - sounds like your business is fairly complex in terms of seasonality, but I would have thought they could handle that. I'll tread carefully, our business is fairly seasonal as well.

All - currently looking into Valogix and other like solutions for our team. Staci / Paul / anyone else - how has this gone for you in the last 2-3 years? Has it improved? Do you still use them, or if not who else do you use? What are your pain points? Any insight would be as good as gold to me, and I'll buy you a drink at…

The only way I know of to accomplish this is by creating a custom record that logs daily (using Suitescript) the inventory quantities for all of the SKUs you wish to track. If you don't have a ton of SKUs, this isn't a terrible solution - however, if you have a lot of them, it can generate a ridiculous amount of records,…

Workflows can be scheduled to run every 30 minutes, though it would take a bit of work to get the email to contain all of the saved search results. It doesn't look like more granularity than that is offered, though. Scheduled or Map/Reduce scripts are much more granular and allow you to specify repeating every 15 min, 30…

Jordan Manningham if you make one Formula (Currency) instead of Formula (Numeric), then it will let you sort both independently, since NS sees them as different column types. Currency and Numeric columns are ostensibly displayed the same anyway, so your results won't look any different. It sucks we have to use this as a…

You could use the summary formula approach I posted if you need to base it off of a custom column field jmessersmith . Just beware that it will only work properly if your results tab also groups together all results into one row per sales order.

Try the "Item on Any Line" search filter field. Then you wouldn't need main line = false. If you need main line = false for other reasons, it will probably still work, but you could also then use a summary criteria. Sum of formula(numeric)...CASE WHEN {item} = %YOURITEMID% THEN 1 ELSE 0 END...is equal to 0

No issues running item searches (saved or ad hoc) here. I would open a support case w/ NS for sure if you haven't already.

Tom - Are you grouping your results? When I try running a search, adding that formula column actually increases the number of rows returned, as I believe it is returning more than one result per customer (each customer has purchased multiple different items).

What if instead of inventory location as such, you used something like {inventorylocation.internalid} ? Sometimes I find that "fooling" NS by using an ID instead of a list/record will achieve the desired result.

Group should work just fine for you.

dmashburn3 why don't you want to use summary grouped results in your search? Seems like that would help you achieve what you want.

Just a quick thought - instead of the field itself, what if you place it inside a Formula (Text) column, does it still truncate it then?

Hey dmashburn3 - I didn't get any attached image, can you try sending again?

John - NS recently changed something where returning the "ship date" field would pull in the main line field, EVEN IF the criteria were mainline=no. Since that change, I've resolved the issue by creating a new custom body field ("main ship date" or whatever you prefer to call it) and creating a workflow to keep it updated…

That seems odd, normally there's no problem using a custom date field as a filter.

This has been a common request from me, and unfortunately isn't possible via a score card - you will need to go the saved search route, or write a custom portlet.

Relatively easy with scripting, I've set this up for clients as well - however there is a NetSuite "dunning" feature that is supposed to accomplish this - I believe it is available as a SuiteBundle / Suiteapp - I have not tried it yet though.

These should both be Customer type searches, and you're going to ultimately want the relevant criteria in the "Summary" section (as opposed to the "Standard" section). For the first search, it will be something like Summary Type = Maximum, Field = Case Fields... -> Date Created is less than 2 weeks ago. For the second…

I've attached some photos with captions to help walk you through this process - let me know if this helps.

No problem :)

Haven't tested this but I would think you'd want to change your summary criteria field to count Document Number, rather than your custom field. Then, grouping by that custom field should result in only showing you instances where the count of orders containing the same value in that field is > 1.

Unfortunately, the short answer is no :-/ NetSuite Saved Searches do not allow for nested joins - you can basically only go one level deep. So it sounds like a messy CASE statement may be the only way to solve your particular problem, unless you want to store the internal ID on the custom record alongside the linked record.

See also: http://blog.prolecto.com/2014/05/16/reveal-both-aggregate-and-detail-in-netsuite-saved-search/

I checked and the Item Rate field is there (Created Field : Item Rate) but contains no data. I don't believe there is a way to get the info but I will check further.

It probably doesn't like being Formula (Text) and returning an actual Numeric field. Does it work if you wrap {locationquantityavailable} in TO_CHAR()?

Man, I wish we had more control over the "Available Filters" within saved searches. I'd love to make dynamic filters like you're suggesting. Unfortunately as of now, I don't believe there's much you can do. One possible (if long-winded) solution would be to create a custom field that references the state/province list, and…

Yeah, I stopped working on this project. Probably not a lot of support for this in NS at the moment it seems.

Yeah, I'd go the hard-coded approach too.